How things look through an Oregonian's eyes

October 31, 2007

Today the Willamette University College of Law sponsored a debate between two alumni who are on opposite sides of Oregon's Measure 49. Ralph Bloemers of the Crag Law Center ("Yes") handily beat Ross Day of Oregonians in Action ("No).

And I'm not saying that just because Ralph is representing our neighborhood's Keep Our Water Safe committee, which is fighting a Measure 37 subdivision that threatens to dry up area wells and springs.

As a good debater and attorney should, Ralph founded his arguments on facts. Ross, on the other hand, dissembled quite a bit. Apparently he couldn't come up with enough factual reasons to support Measure 37 and oppose Measure 49, so the truth got shaded.

To Ross' credit, when the question and answer period started he saw my hand waving halfway up the rows in the law school classroom and called on me. He knew that the Hines' (Laurel was sitting next to me) are fervent Measure 49 supporters, but welcomed a critical question.

Which, mine was. But I started off with a comment.

Ross had said that the Measure 49 ballot title had been written by supporters of the legislation, as if that was something nefarious. He also said that this had never been done before, which isn't true.

Ross repeated that it was the "supporters" of the measure who wrote the ballot title. Yes, I replied, those supporters happened to be the democratically elected Democratic majority in the 2007 legislature. Not exactly a band of renegade rabble rousers – which, however, pretty well describes the Oregonians in Action bunch that foisted Measure 37 on Oregonians.

Ross Day was one of the OIA attorneys who wrote Measure 37. This law is recognized as being poorly written. For example, the bunch who couldn't draft legislation right managed to word it so that transferability of Measure 37 development rights isn't allowed (according to an Attorney General's opinion and court cases), though they thought it would be.

Yet somehow Ross tried to claim that he now was an expert on the legal language in Measure 49. I doubt that, just as I doubted his statement that the Measure 49 ballot title wouldn't have survived judicial scrutiny if the legislature hadn't written it.

Funny. I'm not an attorney. But I seemed to know more than he did about the lawsuit OIA filed in federal court challenging the ballot title. The lawsuit was dismissed, so the ballot title did indeed survive judicial scrutiny.

That was just one of Ross' many misstatements that led me to call Ralph Bloemers the debate winner. Here's another, which was stimulated by the question that followed my comment.

Partly on behalf of a person who couldn't attend the debate, but wanted this question asked, I told Ross that Measure 37 gives special treatment to those who invest in real estate. Why, I said, should a real estate investment that's affected by a government regulation be treated differently than a stock, bond, commodity, or other sort of investment?

Investing is risky. Changes in government policies is a risk that every investor faces. Real estate investors shouldn't be able to ask taxpayers for millions of dollars to reimburse them for an investment that didn't make them as rich as they expected, when nobody else can do this.

I told Ross that the payday loan industry basically was shut down by the 2007 Oregon legislature when it put a 36% cap on interest rates that used to be over 300%. I asked Ross why Oregonians in Action didn't consider this to be a "taking" that deserves compensation from the public coffers.

His answer was real bad, legally. Ross said that property rights is in the constitution, so it is fitting that real estate investors get special treatment under Measure 37.

Ralph Bloemers jumped on this misunderstanding of the constitution. He correctly pointed out that the government has to take complete physical possession of property before it is considered a "taking" worthy of compensation.

Why, Ralph asked, was Measure 37 proposed to the voters if the constitution already prohibited government from regulating the use of property without compensating the owner?

Game, set, and match to Bloemers! I don't even know if Ross Day scored a debate point.

I do give him credit, though, for repeatedly urging the audience (mostly law students) to vote – no matter how they felt about Measure 49. That was excellent advice.

My wife, Laurel, got in a comment also. Ross had repeated the OIA shtick about how Measure 49 was passed out of the legislature without any public input, no hearings, behind closed doors, blah, blah, blah.

Laurel said that she attended many of the public hearings that led up to House Bill 3540 (which became Measure 49). Those went on for hours. Several times another hearing had to be scheduled the next day because so many people has signed up to testify and they couldn't all be heard – even with a two minute limit on testimony.

She told Ross the truth: that just about everything that could be said about Measure 37 and the need to fix it had been uttered, repeatedly, by members of the public prior to the drafting of HB 3540. The Land Use Fairness Committee didn't see the need to go over the same ground by having a hearing on the Measure 49 legislation.

Maybe that would have been a good idea. Maybe not.

Regardless, Measure 49 now is our one and only chance to restore fairness to Oregon's land use system. So vote "Yes" if you haven't yet opened your mail-in ballot. Now.

October 29, 2007

Pretty exciting. I opened our mailbox Saturday and pulled out a Yes on 49 flyer from the Oregon Sierra Club. A photo that filled half of the back page looked darn familiar.

It was mine! The Yes on 49 campaign had asked permission to use a shot I took of illegal road construction on a Measure 37 subdivision in our neighborhood.

Naturally I said, "sure." But I didn't know whether it was ever going to be used. I'm glad it was, in such a fine way.

Now that I'm a published photographer, it's time for some acknowledgements.

Thanks to my Olympus Stylus 720SW camera, which I set on "landscape," pushed the 3X zoom, and let it do the rest.

Most of all, thanks to the Measure 37 claimants who had the gall to spend five days constructing roads on their property without either a Marion County Major Construction Permit or a DEQ 1200-C erosion control permit, before they were shut down by the county:

Without your willingness to rush ahead with the illegal construction in a fruitless attempt to get vested before Measure 49 passes (which I devoutly hope it will), this photograph couldn't have been taken.

"Fruitless," because construction on a Measure 37 claim that occurs without a required permit won't count toward vesting. Plus, Oregon common law puts a lot of emphasis on "good faith" in determining whether vesting has occurred. Work done in anticipation of a change in a land use law is considered to be in bad faith.

The other side of the flyer looked good too.

Like it says, Vote YES on Measure 49 today to protect Oregon's farmland, forests, water and special places.

October 27, 2007

If you've voted "yes" on Oregon's Measure 49, or plan to, here's what opponents of this much-needed Measure 37 fix are saying about you:

You're a communist or an idiot.

Almost certainly, you disagree. I sure do. I've voted for Measure 49, and I can absolutely certify that I'm neither a communist or an idiot.

Yet recently I spoke at a Measure 49 forum in Turner. One of the people in attendance was the son of Leroy Laack, who has filed a Measure 37 claim to turn 125 acres of groundwater limited high-value farmland near us into a 42-lot (and well) subdivision.

I didn't expect Laack's offspring to be for Measure 49. Or a big fan of me. But I was surprised by how insulting and vituperative this guy was when he stood up during the Q & A period to make a mini-speech.

For some reason he felt that the fact he was a veteran (of the Vietnam War, apparently) should persuade people to vote against Measure 49. He then said that while he was fighting for his country, I was probably protesting against the war.

True enough. But what has that got to do with Measure 49? And isn't it just a bit over the top to then tell the audience:

Measure 49 is a choice between communism and constitutional rights.

Amazingly, a handful of people clapped at that remark.

I suppose they'd also applaud a letter in today's Portland Oregonian that calls anyone who votes for Measures 49 or 50 an idiot.

"Idiots" will vote "yes"So, you don't smoke and you don't have property rights to lose, but you're voting yes for Measures 49 and 50 anyway.

Congratulations! You're an idiot. Your take-home message on election day is, "I'm OK with promoting the greater good of Oregon as long as it's on the back of someone else."

But beware, your dim view of democracy is a double-edged sword. There may come a time when you're asked to give something up for the "greater good" of society. Abortion rights? Civil rights? Union organizing? Higher business taxes? Your property?

And don't you dare whine, because then you'll not only be an idiot, but a hypocrite.Dan Vlastelicia Southeast Portland

Well, with this sort of name-calling, Dan surely has secured a good number of "yes" votes for Measures 49 and 50. Thanks, Dan. Keep up the insults.

And the lack of logic. Supporters of these ballot measures are all for democracy and respecting the will of the majority. The upcoming election will decide whether a majority of Oregonians favor or oppose Measure 49 and 50.

This isn't a "dim view" of democracy. It's trusting that voters are able to make the right decision about land use planning and children's health care. It's precisely the opposite of communism – state-run control.

So vote "yes" on Measures 49 and 50.

Show opponents that you aren't an idiot by completing the ballot, putting it in the proper envelope, signing it, placing a stamp on it, and mailing it so it's received by November 6.

October 24, 2007

Wow, a first. I just phoned Oregonians in Action at 503-620-0258, a group that I despise.

But I stifled my urge to barf when I heard their answering machine fire up this evening, because I wanted to urge them to comply with a request made today by Robert Klonoff, dean of the School of Law at Lewis & Clark College.

Klonoff is deeply irked that Oregonians in Action used the school's name in a mailing sent by James Huffman, a law school professor.

In a press release issued today, Klonoff calls on OIA to send a letter of correction to all households that received the previous mailing to clarify that the anti-Measure 49 message didn't represent the position of the law school.

Klonoff lays it on the duplicitous OIA'ers.

Fair debate requires that all participants represent their ideas with integrity and sincerity. The misuse of our name by Oregonians in Action violates that fundamental principle. It is deeply troublesome that the group would mislead voters in an attempt to garner support on this controversial issue. They must correct the record immediately.

So I urge you to pick up a phone, dial 503-620-0258, and tell Oregonians in Action to get cracking on the correction letter.

I told OIA that even though their reputation has sunk about as low as it could possibly go, given all the lies their campaign has been caught making, they might be able to rise a bit above garbage pit level if they expeditiously send out the mea culpa letter.

[Next morning update: A neighbor just told me about calling OIA and being connected with Dave Hunnicutt, the head honcho. Her daughter is a first year law student at Lewis & Clark. She'd read the press release from Dean Klonoff, where he demands that OIA send out a correction letter to everyone who got the first misleading one.

She explains her concern to Hunnicutt. Soon he's interrupting and talking over her. He says, "I've talked with the dean." Well, obviously not recently. Then Hunnicutt says "You're wasting my time" and hangs up on her. Typical OIA modus operandi. Act like a jerk, lie and mislead people, mess with the facts, don't face your own B.S.]

Congratulations to Dave Adams of "Fix It or Nix It" sign fame, Adam Klugman, and the Progressive Media Agency for creating a marvelous means of showing the lies that Measure 37 claimants spout when their lust to build a large subdivision overrides honesty and ethics.

Charlie Hoff, a Tualatin land speculator, should be hugely embarassed by this video. Assuming he's got any shame left in his "pave it over with deception and greed" brain.

Watch. If you're like me, you'll feel like laughing and crying. And voting "yes" on Measure 49.

How can a newspaper run a content-free editorial about an important statewide vote? How is it possible to say you're against a piece of legislation without describing it?

After exchanging lots of emails with the editorial page editor, Dick Hughes (who wrote the editorial), and Brian Priester, the newspaper's president and publisher, I've concluded that both of these guys are clueless about what it means to be a responsible journalist.

Even I, who was a journalism major at San Jose State College back in 1967 for just a semester, knows more about the ethics of editorial writing than Hughes and Priester.

I sent them a link to the Basic Statement of Principles of the National Conference of Editorial Writers. I pointed out that the first two principles are:

1. The editorial writer should present facts honestly and fully. It is dishonest to base an editorial on half-truth. The writer should never knowingly mislead the reader, misrepresent a situation, or place any person in a false light. No consequential errors should go uncorrected.

2. The editorial writer should draw fair conclusions from the stated facts basing them upon the weight of evidence and upon the writer's considered concept of the public good.

Note that "facts" are mentioned twice. Opinion has to be based on facts. Yet when I told Hughes about the significant factual errors in his editorial he emailed me:

Well, my first comment is that you shouldn't use all caps. Bad form. My second comment is what I told Hughes: read what the National Conference of Editorial Writers considers to be ethical editorial writing.

It sure isn't what Dick Hughes wrote. Because one of the most egregious factual errors in his Measure 49 editorial is this statement:

In fact, the only people who may benefit from Measure 49 are the lobbyists, interest groups and lawyers on either side.

This is obviously wrong. It shows that Hughes either knows nothing about Measure 49, or he's choosing to ignore the facts so he can make a predetermined recommendation to vote "no" without looking like more of an idiot than he already does.

Because if Hughes had said, "We're recommending you vote 'no' because we favor large subdivisions on farm, forest, and groundwater limited land. We don't want Measure 37 claimants to have transferability rights that will allow buyers of their property to develop it themselves. We're opposed to letting spouses of Measure 37 claimants be able to inherit the waiver. We favor allowing industrial and commercial uses on Oregon's most valuable farmland" – readers of the Statesman Journal would have said to themselves Why the @#$$%&! Is the newspaper taking this position?

This is why I strenuously argued that the editorial violated both of the ethical principles above.

It took an underhanded duplicitous approach to its "no" recommendation, failing to mention even one thing that Measure 49 would do if passed, and failing to mention any of the negative effects that Measure 37 will bring Oregon if left unfixed.

The National Conference of Editorial Writers says that fair conclusions have to be drawn from the stated facts. Yet Hughes presented no facts, none, to support his statement that lobbyists, interest groups, and lawyers may be the only people to benefit from Measure 49.

That's patently false. And Hughes got plenty of emails that informed him of that fact in response to his request for comments and suggestions on the draft editorial, as I reported yesterday.

Today I heard back from Brian Priester, president and publisher of the Statesman Journal. It's obvious that he, like Hughes, doesn't understand that an editorial is supposed to be based on more than personal opinion – which easily shades into crazy-ass fantasy, as was the case with Hughes' piece.

I could say, "Vote no on Measure 49 because it lets government bureaucrats come into your home and kill your dog or cat." Oh my god, that's shocking!

Well, it should be. Because I just made it up. Just like Hughes made up the sentence about Measure 49 not benefitting the general public.

This afternoon I heard from publisher Brian Priester. He wrote me:

The one you quoted as most egregious – "In fact, the only people who may benefit from Measure 49 are the lobbyists, interest groups and lawyers on either side," strikes me as 1) clearly opinion (by the use of the word "may" as opposed to "will") and 2) an accurate characterization and reasonable conclusion based on the information at our disposal.

Since it speculates on future events, I don't see how it could be construed as a factual error. At most, one could argue we drew the wrong conclusion from the arguments presented to us - and I am sure readers will argue that point in letters to the editor. So, no I don't consider this a "factual error."

Um, Mr. Priester, didn't you read the principle #2 that I sent you in an earlier email? To repeat:

2. The editorial writer should draw fair conclusions from the stated facts basing them upon the weight of evidence and upon the writer's considered concept of the public good.

Sure, it's the Oregonians in Action and Salem Chamber of Commerce party line that technical problems with the wording of Measure 49 won't allow any of the law's stated benefits to go into effect. But nobody believes this other than the most extreme Measure 37 fanatics.

Measure 49 was carefully reviewed by legislative counsel before being sent to the voters, which means that it will accomplish what it says it will do.

So when Priester says that Hughes' editorial is factual and draws correct conclusions, that's hogwash.

I've been a Statesman Journal subscriber for over thirty years and have always considered the newspaper to be a valuable asset to the Salem community.

Now that it's owned and run by Gannett, it sure seems like the corporate culture has changed. There's an arrogance to Hughes and Priester that screams "We can do whatever we want, journalism ethics be damned, because we can."

That's sad. Salem deserves better.

Vote "yes" on Measure 49. Show Hughes and Priester that the citizens of Oregon know the difference between right and wrong, even if they don't.

October 21, 2007

You'd think that a major Oregon newspaper would want to correct factual errors when they're pointed out to them. But not the Salem Statesman Journal, which published a Measure 49 editorial today that is riddled with inaccuracies.

Yesterday I wrote about the draft editorial that was put up on the paper's editorial blog Friday evening. The editorial board said that the draft was "subject to change." They asked that comments and suggestions about this editorial be sent to the lead writer, Editorial Page Editor Dick Hughes.

And, oh boy, did Hughes did comments and suggestions. In a continuation to this post you'll find an email message that I sent to the editorial board today, describing what happened after I found the draft editorial at 9:30 pm Friday night via a Google News "Measure 37" alert.

The upshot was that Hughes got deluged with emails from people a while lot more knowledgeable about Measures 37 and 49 than he appears to be. Neighbors, friends, and other Oregon countrymen concerned about preserving this state's land use laws told Hughes the truth about Measure 49.

Some of the comments are on the Statesman Journal editorial blog. They're marvelous. Thoughtful, detailed, considered, passionate discussions of what passage of Measure 49 would mean for Oregon, and what a disaster it would be if Measure 37 is allowed to continue on unfixed.

State Rep. Brian Clem, who was on the legislature's Land Use Fairness Committee that referred Measure 49 to the voters, sent in an email that corrected inaccuracies in the draft editorial. So did Bob Stacey, executive director of 1000 Friends of Oregon. In part Stacey said:

The draft Measure 49 editorial posted last night is deeply disappointing, given the Statesman-Journal's long support for responsible land use planning. It also advances a series of arguments that don't support the editorial's conclusion. You should take the time to fix it, and change your recommendation to "yes."

…You say, incredibly, that "Oregon won't be devastated by letting Measure 37 run its course." You'd better look again at the maps. Or look at the photos of Measure 37 subdivisions under construction at www.yeson49.com. The parts of Oregon where farms and towns coexist today, thanks to land use planning, will indeed be devastated if this continues. That's why The Oregon Farm Bureau Federation--and the Marion, Polk and Yamhill County Farm Bureaus--have endorsed Measure 49. It's still not too late to amend your draft editorial and join them.

Dick Hughes and I, along with my wife, have been engaging in an extensive exchange of emails about how the comments to the draft editorial were responded to by the Statesman Journal. I appreciate Hughes' willingness to get into a back-and-forth with readers, but it's become distressingly clear that he doesn't understand what bothers us so much.

Sure, we're disappointed that the editorial didn't endorse a "yes" vote on Measure 49. But if good reasons had been offered up for a "no" recommendation, backed up by facts, we would have said to ourselves, "We don't agree, but the editorial board is entitled to its own opinion."

Instead, Hughes ignored virtually all of the emails he got that pointed out inaccuracies in both the factual foundation and conclusions of the draft editorial. This is what deeply bothers us: the Statesman Journal asked for feedback on the draft, which was open to changes, then turned a blind eye to the many substantive comments and suggestions sent to Hughes.

I've compared the draft and final versions of the editorial. Here are the differences I found:

Yet Hughes had the gall to say this in a prefatory comment to Rep. Clem's email message: "A variety of comments, including Clem's, helped us refine and clarify today's editorial."

Oh, whoopee. The biggest change was clarifying that the 2007 legislature "cut" funding for the Big Look task force rather than "killed" it.

Meanwhile misleading statements remained in the editorial. Many people pointed this out. In an email to Hughes I gave him my own take on some of the worst inaccuracies in the draft editorial (quoted at the beginning of each section).

--"By toying with the state's land use system instead of reforming it..." Measure 37 reformed Oregon's land use system, for the worse. Measure 49 fixes the worst flaws of the reform. This isn't "toying." That's demeaning to the 7,500 Measure 37 claimants and the many more thousands of Oregonians who are directly affected by those claims.

I'd like you to tell our neighbors on Liberty Road who have had to replace or deepen their wells, even without 42 more wells being drilled on the subdivision property, that limiting this Measure 37 claim to three home sites is "toying." Real people are living in the real world, with real wells that can go dry. They can't wait for Big Look to come up with recommendations that may or may not be enacted years in the future.

--"Measure 49 adds to that complexity." No, it simplifies it. Measure 37 was poorly written. Transferability of waivers, for example, isn't allowed under an AG's opinion, even though OIA thought they'd allowed for it. This shows, by the way, that the number of words in a piece of legislation doesn't equate to how clear it is. Measure 49 was reviewed and approved by legislative counsel to make sure it does what legislators wanted, which is more than Measure 37 does.

I can tell you that Measure 49 is a much simpler approach to protecting groundwater limited areas than the mishmash of county water ordinances that currently exists. Our neighborhood's Keep Our Water Safe committee has spent almost $30,000 on trying to get Marion County to enforce its own groundwater ordinance. Not many areas adjoining a Measure 37 claim that threatens their water supply are able to do that. Measure 49 gives them the protection they need (again, by limiting home sites to three) in a much simpler fashion.

--"In fact, the only people who may benefit from Measure 49 are the lobbyists, interest groups and lawyers on either side." This is completely and utterly wrong, beyond misleading. It's flat out wrong. My wife and I sat through most of the Land Use Fairness Committee hearings that produced Measure 49. We're completely familiar with the Measure. We know how it will affect our neighborhood and similar groundwater limited areas that have Measure 37 claims nearby.

Measure 49 will benefit property owners out here a lot. That's why you've been hearing from so many of them, like Don Dean, who lives next door to the Laack subdivision and is worried about his well going dry after 42 additional wells go in next door. An entirely justified fear, because independent water experts hired by Marion County have concluded as much.

I've already told you, as has my wife, how Measure 37 claimants will benefit from Measure 49 by getting transferability and inheritability of their waivers. So again: this statement is not only misleading, it is absolutely wrong.

--"Until then, Oregon won't be devastated by letting Measure 37 take its course." This is another inaccurate statement, unless by "Oregon" you mean the members of the SJ editorial board. Again, out in the real world, like here in south Salem, and in the orchards of the Hood River valley (to mention but a few places), Oregon indeed is going to be devastated.

I've heard Brian Clem speak about his family farm in the Hood River valley, and seen the map he holds up of the Measure 37 claims that essentially surround it. He says that it is virtually impossible to keep farming when subdivisions encircle a farm. This is why the Oregon Farm Bureau Federation supports Measure 49.

But Hughes merely sat at his computer most of the day yesterday, merrily ignoring the corrections to factual inaccuracies in the draft that kept pouring in to him, while getting testy when my wife suggested that the newspaper may have some subscriptions cancelled because of the editorial, and saying he was "torqued" when I told him there were misleading statements in the draft. Which, there were.

I've asked for two things from the editorial board: (1) the go ahead for me to write an opinion piece for the editorial page that discusses how the newspaper's process for soliciting feedback on draft editorials is seriously flawed, using the Measure 49 piece as an example, and (2) a meeting with the editorial board to discuss our concerns.

I'll end with my message to Hughes and the Statesman Journal editorial board. Hopefully they'll be open to improving their disastrously flawed system (or rather, non-system) for responding to comments and suggestions on draft editorials.

As I said in my message, a lot of people put in a lot of time and energy telling Hughes about the errors in his draft editorial. Journalistic ethics demands that you seriously consider those comments, not summarily dismiss them – which is what happened with the Measure 49 editorial.

October 20, 2007

At 9:35 pm last night a Google News alert told me that the Salem Statesman Journal had put a draft Measure 49 editorial up on its blog. The editorial is scheduled to appear in the Sunday paper.

I immediately clicked on over and read one of the most misleading gutless editorials I've ever seen. And I've seen a lot.

This must be a first: a recommendation for a "no" vote on a ballot measure that doesn't mention a single thing the measure would do.

Dick Hughes, the lead writer for the editorial, doesn't get into the substance of Measure 49 at all. He's only concerned about process – how the measure is 13, 314 words long, how this is one more chapter in Oregon's long history of wrestling with land use issues, how he'd prefer that the Big Look effort propose reforms rather than Measure 49.

No meat (or tofu) to the editorial at all. It's a piece of fluff with zero relevance to the real issues Oregonians are facing after three years of Measure 37.

Should large subdivisions pave over irreplaceable farm, forest, and groundwater limited land? Should Measure 37 claimants be given transferability and inheritability of their waivers, thereby allowing them to develop their land and pass on a claim to heirs after they die? Should industrial and commercial uses be allowed on rural farmland?

We've alerted as many people as we could about this gutless editorial and urged them to send comments to Hughes and the Statesman Journal editorial board.

It's gutless because Hughes' "no" position implicitly favors all of the negative impacts of Measure 37, while rejecting all of the benefits that Measure 49 will bring both to Measure 37 claimants and Oregonians in general.

I've sent Hughes several email messages. So has my wife. Thus far he hasn't responded to any of our substantive comments.

And believe me, we've made a lot – as have many of our neighbors. It sure looks like the Statesman Journal knows next to nothing about Measure 49, because there's no sign that Hughes or anyone else at the newspaper understands the Measure 37 problems that 49 fixes, and why it will be a disaster to leave Measure 37 unchanged.

Here's my most recent message to Hughes. I make a lot of sense. The draft editorial doesn't. I encourage you to read this ridiculous attempt at editorializing and tell Dick Hughes and the editorial board what you think about it: [email protected]and [email protected] .

Dick, thanks for the replies. But here's one of my main gripes about your draft editorial: it doesn't say what Measure 49 will do. How the heck can you come out against something that you don't even describe?

I, like lots of other readers, am going to assume that you don't know anything about Measure 49, because all you do is criticize it in extremely broad generalities. That's terrible editorial writing, and horribly unfair to Measure 49.

So if you're going to endorse a "no" vote on 49, at least say this:

"We're opposed to giving claimants for 1-10 home sites transferability rights, so they can easily sell their lots to buyers who want to build a home. We're against allowing Measure 37 claimants to be able to pass their claim on to a spouse when they die.

We favor allowing large subdivisions on farm, forest, and groundwater limited land. We believe the best use of vineyard-ready acreages in the south Salem hills is to pave them over and make them into ranchettes. We like how Measure 37 allows gravel pits, mini-storage businesses, and other commercial uses on rural farmland. It's fine with us if farmers aren't able to continue to farm because they're surrounded by Measure 37 subdivisions."

That's what your draft editorial really say. Except you don't have the guts to say it. You have a fantasy that in couple of years, or whenever the Big Look process comes up with some recommendations, Oregon won't be drastically changed by Measure 37 developments.

You haven't heard Rep. Brian Clem say repeatedly, as I have, that this is Oregon's one chance at fixing the problems with Measure 37.

Again, what I'm most disappointed in, Dick, is that you aren't being straight with your readers. You're taking the easy way out by not describing what Measure 49 will do, and why you're against this (allowing transferability and inheritability of Measure 37 claims, restricting subdivisions on farm, forest, and groundwater limited land, and so on).

Come on. Stand up for what you believe. Support paving over Oregon and continuing to make it almost impossible for small Measure 37 claimants to develop their property.

Lastly, what's the point of your editorial blog, where you solicit feedback from readers, if you've already made your mind up? This is a farce. I suspect the editorial board isn't even going to seriously consider all of the comments in support of Measure 49 that you've gotten from readers in response to your blog post last night.

I'll add to the truth pile by pointing out that the Oregon Family Farm Association has little or nothing to do with farmers. In 2006 this political action committee supported Oregon Ballot Measure 39, which dealt with eminent domain.

Opponents of Measure 49, some of whom are asking for up to 140 homes, issued a glossy 8-page brochure to Oregon voters this week making hysterical and often patently false claims about the effects of Measure 49.

Among the most egregious lies—

CLAIM: The Netters say: "If Measure 49 passes, we'll lose the value of our property. We want to see the tradition go on... we want to farm."WHAT THEY'RE NOT TELLING YOU: The statement is patently false. The Netters filed a Measure 37 claim for a 60-lot housing subdivision on their 98 acres of exclusive farm use land. The state denied the subdivision because the land was already protected farmland when Fred Netter acquired it in 1977. Under Measure 37 they are allowed up to 3 houses—Measure 49 would preserve these rights.

CLAIM: Marla Robison says in the brochure: "Measure 49 is about stopping us from passing our property rights on to our grandchildren."WHAT THEY'RE NOT TELLING YOU: The opposite is true. Measure 49 specifically allows property owners to pass development rights on to their grandchildren, which is not allowed currently (by Measure 37). Marla Robison has proposed an 18-home subdivision, but her property was zoned agricultural when she bought it. Now she's trying to create 2 homes—which Measure 49 would allow.

CLAIM: The Laraways say in the brochure: "If Measure 49 passes, our whole way of life -- as farmers -- as we know it, would be gone."WHAT THEY'RE NOT TELLING YOU: The Laraways have filed Measure 37 claims to build 144 housing units on their farm land: 42 houses on 10.5 acres, 70 multi-family units on another 10.5 acres, 26 houses on another 26 acres, and 6 units on another 34-acre parcel.

CLAIM: The Currys say in the brochure: "If Measure 49 goes through…we won't have anything left at all. Measure 49 would just take it all away." WHAT THEY'RE NOT TELLING YOU: No property would be taken away under Measure 49. The Currys are trying to build a 110-home subdivision on their property even though their voters' pamphlet statement says they just want homes for their kids and grandkids. Measure 49 would allow them between 1 and 10 homes.

CLAIM: Ollie Wilcox says in the brochure: "If Measure 49 passes we will lose all our rights – not only our rights, but our children's and grandchildren's."WHAT THEY'RE NOT TELLING YOU: Measure 49 won't take the Wilcoxes' rights away. She has proposed a 16-home subdivision on 8 acres of rural land. Measure 49 will allow her between 1 and 3 homes, and will specifically give the same rights to her children and grandchildren—rights they don't currently have under Measure 37.

CLAIM: Jennifer Helberg says of her mother, Mary Holtan: "If Measure 49 passes it means my mom can't retire. Under Measure 49, families like ours have to go back to square one and even then we're not assured of any rights…I'm worried about her…we all are. The farm is all she has."WHAT THEY'RE NOT TELLING YOU: Mary Holtan has applied to have one lot divided into 3 parcels and a second lot divided into two – Measure 49 would allow both.

CLAIM: The Bitzes say in the brochure: "We told our kids we would give our property to them...We'd like to keep our farm for future generations." WHAT THEY'RE NOT TELLING YOU: Measure 49 will allow property rights to transfer to an owner's children, which Measure 37 does not. But the Bitzes don't need it: under current zoning (without Measure 37), Jerald Bitz can divide his property into seven lots. -----------------------------

If these lies by the Stop 49 campaign haven't exhausted your gag quotient, head to Peter Bray's blog to learn about how the Stop 49 sleaze machine is using throwaway cell phones to annoy people with anti-49 text messages.

Wow, that's brilliant campaigning. A spam text message – just the thing to make a person vote "Yes" on Measure 49.

October 17, 2007

Our neighborhood's fight against a Measure 37 subdivision that threatens wells and springs often is like a soap opera – lots of drama.

But then there are moments more akin to a Laurel and Hardy show. Their catch phrase was, "Well, there's another fine mess you've gotten me into."

The Measure 37 claimants who are trying to convert 125 acres of vineyard-ready farmland into an asphaltized subdivision also are like drunken cowboys: they keep shooting themselves in the foot.

The most recent self-imposed injury happened yesterday, when the Oregon DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality) revoked their erosion control, or 1200-C, permit.

This puts all work on hold for 14 days, because DEQ realized that the development is going to end up clearing way more than five acres – which requires a two week public review of a new 1200-C permit application.

The claimants' contractor, North Santiam Paving, had said that only 4.6 acres of land would be disturbed. You can bet that this number was chosen for one very good reason: it's less than 5.

That sort of duplicity has characterized what's known as the "Laack subdivision" from the start. The property owners assured us neighbors that they'd never go ahead with the development if there wasn't evidence that 42 more wells could be drilled without harming existing wells and springs.

Then, as required by Marion County, they did a study of the groundwater situation, submitted it to an independent expert for review, and the report got a big fat "F" – failure. The expert concluded that, yes, the subdivision does pose a serious threat to our neighborhood's groundwater.

But, hey, this large Measure 37 claim is all about making money, not being a good neighbor. So Leroy Laack, Greg Eide, and the other owners plowed ahead with their plans, aided by two members of the county Board of Commissioners (Sam Brentano and Patti Milne) who voted to ignore the county's groundwater ordinance.

This was a shot in the back of those who already live here. But last month Laack, Eide, and North Santiam Paving returned to their self-shooting mode when they started to build roads on the property without the necessary permits.

Marion County shut them down, but not before they'd wasted almost a week's worth of Cat work on roads that lead to nowhere.

I say "nowhere," because I'm confident that Measure 49 is going to pass on November 6 , which will limit this Measure 37 claim to three home sites on six acres of the least productive farmland – which is close to Liberty Road, nowhere near the roads that had been roughed out.

In their eagerness to thrown money into the development so they could claim that they'd become vested before Measure 49 passes, they forgot that illegal construction doesn't count as a vesting expense.

Then they forgot that concerned neighbors, like me, are looking over their shoulder. It was easy to see that the ground clearing on the subdivision property had gone way beyond what the DEQ permit allowed.

So I filed a complaint with DEQ ten days ago. And yesterday the agency agreed that since more than five acres of land was being disturbed, work had to stop on the site.

The sound of silence already is pleasing to us and our neighbors. It's a preview of the non-construction we're going to be able to enjoy – excepting the three home sites that will be allowed by Measure 49, and the vineyard that we hope will soon sprout on the rest of the property.

Tomorrow night I'm going to speak at a Measure 49 forum in Turner. In my ten to fifteen minutes I'm going to tell the tale of this Measure 37 subdivision that exemplifies so many reasons to vote "Yes" on 49.

--Well-heeled Measure 37 claimants whose attitude is "Why should we care if neighboring wells go dry?", because they plan to have taken the money and run by the time subdivision wells are shut down after more senior wells in the area have problems.

--Developers who resort to illegal construction practices in an attempt to make an end run around the will of Oregonians that will be revealed November 6, when Measure 49 passes.

--Politicians who bend the rules for a few Measure 37 claimants and ignore the property rights of the hundreds of people who already live in our area, many of whom already have water problems and are legitimately worried that 42 more wells are going to make things a lot worse.

Vote for Measure 49.

This isn't a Republican or a Democrat thing. It isn't a conservative or a liberal thing. What we're voting on November 6 will decide the future of Oregon. And how fairly this state treats everyone, not just the few thousand people who have filed Measure 37 claims.

(Here's a guy who once believed in Measure 37 and has now seen the light.)

October 15, 2007

Finally, the ad highlights words from the ballot title, implying it is a neutral description. However, the same legislative majority that put Measure 49 on the ballot also wrote the ballot title, bypassing the process normally used to develop neutral wording.

I've told the reporter, Jeff Mapes, that he fell into the Oregonians in Action propaganda machine.

The Attorney General's response to the OIA lawsuit challenging the ballot title can be read here.

Turning to pages 9-10 of the PDF file (numbered pages 5-6) you'll read how the legislature historically had adopted ballot information. The Chief Deputy Legislative Counsel, who has over twenty years of experience in the Counsel's office, submitted an affidavit saying that it is commonplace to follow the process that was used in Measure 49.

That is, for the legislature to write the ballot language and exempt it from judicial review. I'd like to suggest that a correction is in order. Otherwise, I think you did a good job analyzing the ads.

Jeff responded to me:

I think the proponents have an argument to make that they wrote an accurate ballot title. But if they wanted a neutral ballot title, they would have allowed the usual process to go forward. I've seen the Legislature write the ballot title on a handful of occasions (the 1993 sales tax measure comes immediately to mind) and the point in doing it is to prevent as positive a case to voters, within the limits of what they can do.

Well, I guess it comes down to what "usual" means. I replied to Jeff:

The AG's response uses terms like "common," "routinely," and "commonplace" to describe Mr. Reutlinger's affidavit. (The affidavit itself wasn't part of the PDF file, so I haven't read it). It seems clear that what happened with Measure 49 has happened numerous times before, notwithstanding your comment that this time the legislature didn't follow "the usual process." In any case, I think the situation is quite a bit more nuanced than how it was presented in your story.

I also took the opportunity to point out another OIA legend that makes the round of right-wing blogs. Namely, that the Attorney General's office described the Measure 49 ballot title as an "advocacy piece." This isn't true.

As described in the AG's response to the OIA lawsuit (page 12 of PDF file, numbered page 8), the Attorney General's office was commenting on a proposed citizen initiative completely separate from Measure 49.

Someone wanted the ballot language for that initiative to support its passage, and the AG explained that the ballot title should not be an "advocacy piece." That comment had nothing to do with Measure 49.The big money pave-it-over brigade opposing Measure 49 is hoping that some of the many lies they're throwing out will stick in the minds of voters.

Fortunately, the truth is simple. Measure 49's ballot language is accurate and legal. It was written the way legislative referrals to the voters commonly are done. Vote "Yes" and believe that what the Voter's Pamphlet says about Measure 49 is true:

[Update: Just got this from Jeff. I really appreciate how this reporter is so responsive to a reader's comments. The Oregonian doesn't deliver to our rural south Salem home, so virtually every day I buy a paper in town. By and large, the Oregonian strives for balance and fairness in its reporting, which is a big part of why I go to the trouble of reading it daily.]

I believe it's been three or four times over the last 10-12 years. Bear in mind that most ballot measures are citizen initiatives that do have their ballot titles vetted and, often rewritten. So I think many voters have an impression that the ballot title is a neutral description (and the ad reinforced that by citing as the source, "Oregon Voters' Pamphlet" when the ballot title flashed up on the screen).

October 14, 2007

Why was a hugely misleading "No on Measure 49" mass mailing sent from the Lewis & Clark Law School? If this bunch of B.S. reflects the quality of the Oregon school's legal analysis, I feel sorry for the law students.

I won't dignify Huffman's diatribe with any more than this piece of advice: if you recycle the letter, that's an insult to wood pulp that will have to associate its molecules with this garbage. Just this once, throw some paper in the trash – where the letter belongs.

Suffice it to say that nothing in Huffman's letter is accurate. To learn the truth about Measure 49, head here.

I've asked the dean of the Lewis & Clark law school, Robert Klonoff, to explain why the school is being used as a No on 49 campaign center. To email him yourself, click here. I said:

Mr. Klonoff, yesterday I got a letter from your law school (from Professor Huffman) that advocated a "No" vote on Measure 49.

My wife and I are deeply disturbed that you are allowing the law school to be used as a center for the No on 49 campaign. The law school's address is prominently displayed on the return envelope.

In addition, the letter contains many inaccuracies about Measure 49. If this letter reflects the quality of Lewis and Clark's legal analysis, I feel sorry for your students.

Professor Huffman has the right to personally advocate for ballot measures. But Lewis and Clark shouldn't be giving him a forum (and return address) for his uninformed diatribe.

Perhaps your willingness to assist with the No on 49 campaign has something to do with Lewis and Clark's own Measure 37 claims? I hope not, but some are going to jump to this conclusion.

I also emailed Vanessa Fawbush, the Lewis & Clark communications officer (a message to her can be sent here).

Please explain to me why Lewis and Clark allowed its address to be used in the anti-Measure 49 diatribe that I received yesterday from Professor Huffman.

I note that your current dean claims that Lewis and Clark doesn't take a position on political issues. But you allowed Huffman to mail his misleading letter from Lewis and Clark.

I'm an active blogger and plan to write a post about Lewis and Clark's involvement in the No on 49 campaign. I'd welcome any explanation you can give of why Huffman was allowed to use Lewis and Clark as a forum for this mass mailing.

If Huffman did this against school policy, how are you going to deal with his action? What discipline will he face? How will you inform Oregonians that the mailing was conducted under false pretenses?

Dean Klonoff has issued a statement affirming the law school's neutrality on ballot measures. Well, if that's true, let's get the misleading No on 49 letter balanced with a truthful mailing – getting things back to neutral.

Lewis & Clark should require that another letter be sent immediately to everyone who got Huffman's untruthful propaganda. It would say that Huffman wasn't authorized to use the Lewis & Clark address, and encourage the reader to visit the Yes on 49 web site for a balanced examination of this important ballot measure.

If Huffman just gets a slap on the wrist, that'll show that Lewis & Clark doesn't really care if it is used as a platform for political campaigns.

I'll share any responses I get from Klonoff or Fawbush.

[P.S. Just got this from Klonoff:

Dear Sir, Mr. Huffman does not speak for the law school. I have posted a note on the law school web site so stating. The law school is neutral on all political measures. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

OK, that's a start. But not good enough. How is the law school going to correct the "misunderstanding," now that Huffman's letter is in the hands of so many voters? That's the big question.]

October 13, 2007

Yesterday I attended my first Salem City Club meeting, because the program was on Measure 49. It was called "SB 100, Measure 37, Measure 49: Where does Oregon Land?" (nice play on words)

State Representative Brian Clem got in the best line of the noon hour. Referring to the November 6 special election on Measure 49, which will fix many Measure 37 flaws, he said:

This is a future altering event in Oregon's history.

Absolutely. Lane Shetterly, who until recently headed up the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), started off with a review of how Oregon's land use system evolved to its current state.

I moved to Oregon in 1971. By that time the state already had passed a beach bill that guaranteed public access to Oregon's ocean shore (1967) and had celebrated the nation's first Earth Day (1970).

In 1973 Senate Bill 100 further established Oregon's green credentials. This legislation established urban growth boundaries and protected farm and forest land from sprawl.

Numerous times Oregonians affirmed SB 100. But eventually Oregonians in Action brought out Dorothy English and made her the poster child for the deceptions of Measure 37. Voters thought they were allowing people to build a home or two on land that had been rezoned after they bought it.

But Shetterly said that of the 7500 Measure 37 claims, 58% are for subdivisions (defined as four or more homes). There are 2854 claims on farmland and 944 on forestland.

Measure 49 will limit developments to 10 homes, and prohibit commercial/industrial uses like gravel pits and WalMart stores. Unfortunately, some Measure 37 claimants who have building permits may have done enough construction to be "vested."

In that case, they could continue development under the provisions of Measure 37 even if Measure 49 passes. Shetterly was asked who will decide whether a claim is vested under Oregon's common law.

He said this is in the purview of courts. After Measure 49 is approved by voters, Shetterly said that vesting will be decided on a case by case basis using common law precedents.

The good news for people like us who are fighting to protect their neighborhood from being harmed by Measure 37 subdivisions is that the common law has a key "good faith" criterion. Any Measure 37 claimant who started construction after June 15 (when Measure 49 was referred to the voters) likely is acting in bad faith and can't become vested.

Brian Clem said that this is Oregon's one chance to rein in Measure 37. There won't be anything better than Measure 49 coming from the legislature.

October 12, 2007

Measure 37 has brought Oregon a lot of bad news since this initiative was foisted on voters under false pretenses in 2004.

Oregonians thought they were allowing ma and pa to build a dream house on land that got rezoned after they purchased it. Instead, Measure 37 has allowed large subdivisions to sprout on irreplaceable farm and forest land.

With the vote on Measure 49 (a much-needed Measure 37 fix) coming up on November 6, developers with Measure 37 claims are rushing ahead with construction so they can claim they're vested by the time voters say Yes to Measure 49.

A recent article in the Portland Oregonian, "Bulldozers roll to outrace vote," talks about this unseemly rush to pave over farm and forest land before Measure 49 limits subdivisions to a maximum of ten homes.

Unseemly, because Measure 37 advocates like to talk about "respecting the will of the people." They say that Oregonians voted for Measure 37, so now it should be set in stone.

What they aren't telling you is that prior to 2004, Oregonians voted directly or by proxy six times to preserve SB 100 – the foundation of this state's pioneering land use laws. So Measure 37 (and its predecessor, Measure 7) didn't respect the will of the people.

And neither are the Measure 37 subdivision developers who are desperately trying to thwart the will of Oregon voters – who are probably going to approve Measure 49.

Voter's Pamphlets have been mailed out (check out my argument in favor on page 30). Within a couple of weeks ballots will begin to be sent in via Oregon's vote by mail system.

All the while, fearing that Oregonians are going to give large subdivisions on farm, forest, and groundwater limited land a big "thumbs down," the bulldozers roll.

Sometimes illegally, as reported by the Salem Statesman Journal on September 27.

Leroy Laack, Greg Eide, and the other owners of a 125 acre, 42 lot Measure 37 subdivision adjacent to our neighborhood want to get vested so badly they started to build roads without either a Marion County Major Construction Permit or a Department of Environmental Quality 1200-C erosion control permit.

The new Yes on 49 brochure features a photo of the illegal work taken by me. Like I said before, the Yes on 49 campaign should send Laack a thank-you note for showing so clearly why Measure 49 is needed.

Fortunately, there's little chance that a court will consider this subdivision to be vested. "Good faith" is a prime criterion for the common law on vesting, as discussed by attorney Ralph Bloemers in an excellent memo on the subject.

When you start construction without required permits about six weeks before Oregonians are likely to change the state's land use laws, that's bad faith.

And also a bad business decision, because most of that construction work is going to be money down the drain. But, hey, people have the right to make bad business decisions. They just shouldn't expect government to bail them out when they make them.

Recently I talked with a neighbor who lives across the street from the subdivision. Laack bought the land in 1971, and the neighbor has lived there longer than that. He recalled that Laack had several years to start a subdivision, since SB 100 passed in 1973.

But he told me that Laack decided to wait a while, because lots on another nearby subdivision (Spring Lake Estates, where I live) weren't selling very fast.

This turned out to be a bad decision, because the land was rezoned EFU (exclusive farm use) after SB 100 went into effect.

Now, Measure 37 allows the clock to be rolled back for those who bought property for investment purposes and didn't make as much money as they expected because of a change in government policies.

Here's a closed Payday Loan store on State Street in Salem. This year the Oregon legislature prohibited payday loan businesses from charging more than 36% annual interest, way down from the 300+% they'd been screwing customers out of.

So now there's hardly any Payday Loan stores left. There was no call to compensate them for a government regulation that reduced the value of their business. Why should real estate investors be treated any differently?

Measure 49 still gives special privileges to real estate investment, compared to others forms of investing. But it's much fairer than Measure 37.

October 09, 2007

I always figured that I'd be the last human on Earth to own an iPod. But here I am, two days into an increasingly intimate relationship with an iPod Touch, and I'm wondering: Baby, what kept us apart for so long?

The strange thing is, I hardly ever listen to music. Mostly I tune to talk radio and OPB/PBS when I'm driving around. At home, the Internet has been my closest inanimate communicative companion.

Yet I was drawn to the Touch as soon as it was released. It's got the look and feel of an iPhone without the expensive AT&T wireless contract. OK, I can't make a phone call with it. But I can browse the web and do a lot of other really cool stuff.

Or so I've been told by generally laudatory reviews (here, here, and here). I've just begun to get to know my new best friend.

Like most electronic gadgets these days, the Touch comes with an extremely minimalist "manual." Actually, it's a foldout that basically tells you how to get the thing turned on and where to find the real user's guide online. So I still don't know how to do a quarter of the stuff this marvel is capable of.

Nonetheless, last night I found myself sitting on the couch at 1 am, iPod Touch in hand, connected to my in- house wi-fi system, with a vague thought – What am I doing watching a YouTube music video of someone singing in Chinese this time of night? – meandering through my Touch obsessed mind.

There's simply something lovable about it. Like other Apple products, it's marvelously well-designed and intuitive. At first the lack of visible controls worried me: How do you make this creature do what you want? Where's the volume adjustment?

However, it didn't take long for the touchiness of this new iPod model to sooth my anxieties. With a scroll of the finger or a double tap the iPod leaps to obey my command.

At the moment that often isn't what I expected it to do. But hey, I still haven't read the user's guide (thanks to the above-linked reviews, I just learned that double-clicking the Home button brings up a volume control no matter what else you're doing, so that solves one question).

It was super easy to transfer my first music CD (a Nora Jones album) to the Touch via my computer's iTunes interface. That motivated me to drive to a Radio Shack store and get a connector for the MP3 Aux input in my Prius.

Voila! Nora now was singing to me over my car radio!

And instead of wondering "what's the name of this song" I could turn to the iPod Touch and see what was playing. I could even do a finger scroll thing over the name of the track and rate the song from 1 to 5 stars (apparently my Touch can be told to only play songs I rate highly).

So, yeah, I'm in love. Of course, instant infatuation often strikes when I meet-up with some seductive piece of technology.

But I've got a feeling this relationship is going to be different. I'm looking forward to brushing the cobwebs off of our CD collection and getting lots of tunes into the receptive interior of Ms. iPod Touch.

I can envision a future where political talk radio and I don't spend nearly as much time together. That'll be good for my blood pressure. Plus, I don't want my new friend to feel jealous.

October 07, 2007

Ah, Salem. It's sad how you're never able to rise above the moniker of "Oregon's boring capital city."

Today's Statesman Journal had three stories on the front page that demonstrated how far Salem has to go before it's worthy to be considered anything more than an I-5 gas stop between Portland and Eugene.

The City Council's notion is to make each property owner responsible for repairing the slice of sidewalk in front of their home or business.

As one of the commenters on this story said, why not also make people maintain the part of the public road in front of their property? Or the sewer and septic lines? It's one more nonsensical city decision that makes residents sigh, "Ah, (or ugh) Salem."

However, many more downtown buildings are empty, boarded up, and also eyesores. I've noted that the best thing about downtown Salem is the plethora of vacant free parking spaces, because there's so little reason for anyone to go downtown.

My wife and I owned shares in the LLC (Sustainable Fairview Associates) that bought the Fairview property and eventually sold it to a group led by a Portland developer, Phil Morford.

Our decision to cash out when the opportunity presented itself looks really wise in retrospect. Because now Morford probably will have to sell the property to someone else, and the sustainable zoning looks shaky – reading between the lines of this quote in the newspaper story.

Last week, the bankruptcy trustee met with Salem city officials and discussed the property's zoning and infrastructure. Plans for the Fairview site are flexible and shouldn't deter a potential buyer, McKittrick said.

Translation: "The city doesn't give a rip about sustainability and would be just as happy to see a traditional development be built, if that's what it takes to get more property taxes flowing into Salem's coffers (not that we'll pay for sidewalk repairs even then)."

October 05, 2007

Signs can't speak. And yet, they can. Volumes. I'm going to tell you what I hear these two photos saying.

Last Tuesday signs urging a "No" vote on Oregon's Measure 49 sprouted on a Measure 37 subdivision in south Salem. It sits on groundwater limited farmland that would be perfect for growing grapes instead of asphalt.

The next day, the signs were gone. Vandalized.

I wasn't surprised. And yet, I was. Because our neighborhood is full of law and order-respecting people, not the sort who go around ripping down someone else's political signs.

There's a string of "Yes on 49" lawn signs on four separate properties across Liberty Road from the subdivision. They haven't been touched. So what does the disappearance of the "No on 49" signs tell us?

Our neighborhood is deeply frustrated with what Measure 37 has brought us: special property rights for a few at the expense of the many.

Understand: I'm not condoning vandalism.

All I'm saying is that I understand what led someone to do what they normally wouldn't – mess with the property of the Measure 37 claimants (Leroy and Jean Laack, Andrew and Margaret Rainone, M. Duane Rawlins, and Greg Eide).

What goes around comes around. Our neighborhood has been messed with big time by this planned 42 home (and well) subdivision on 125 groundwater limited acres.

We've been ignored, lied to, and forced to endure legal injustices. So I found it more than a little hypocritical that the property just got marked with legalistic "No Trespassing" signs.

See those bulldozers in the background? From September 17-21 they were busy building illegal roads on the subdivision until Marion County shut them down.

Does one illegality deserve another? No. But the illegal road construction, which tore up a piece of lovely Oregon farmland known as Twin Hills, almost certainly fueled the flame of someone's feeling: I'm mad as hell at these guys.

I share that feeling.

Playing the land development game as tough as you can by the rules is one thing; breaking those rules in a hell-bent attempt to get construction started before voters approve Measure 49 is a whole other thing (the property will be limited to three home sites if Measure 49 passes, because it is groundwater limited farmland).

A front page story in the Salem newspaper said that Bill Lulay of North Santiam Paving claimed there was an agreement with Marion County to start work without the usual construction permit. That isn't true. Here's what I've been told in writing by James Sears, director of Public Works:

The county did not have an agreement with the developer or their engineer to start construction without a permit.

Pretty simple. Laack and his co-owners started to build roads illegally without either a Major Construction Permit or a 1200-C erosion control permit from the Department of Environmental Quality.

And now they're all huffy about people trespassing on their property.

Guys, here's a thought: have you heard of the Golden Rule? You know, the doing unto others thing? If people see you obeying the law, they'll be more likely to respect your rights.

Here's another source of irritation among the fifty or so neighbors actively opposing this threat to our wells and springs. Over and over again in public hearings the Measure 37 claimants and their consultants testified, "We would never go ahead with the subdivision if there was evidence that it posed a threat to existing water users."

Well, pardon my bluntness, but that was B.S. Because the developer's hydrogeologist prepared a report of water availability in the area. Then, as required by a county ordinance, she submitted it to independent water experts for their assessment.

Legally that should have stopped the subdivision until a lot more information was collected via test wells, monitoring of existing wells, and such. But two Marion County commissioners, Sam Brentano and Patti Milne, voted to allow the subdivision to move forward anyway.

This atrocious decision is being appealed, and I'm confident we'll win. For now, we're left with both a legal and ethical dilemma – one which we feel we're on the right side of, and the Measure 37 claimants aren't.

Because they have to live with their broken promise to the neighbors. They said they wouldn't go ahead with the subdivision if there was evidence that neighboring wells and springs could go dry. There is. That's a fact.

Yet those bulldozers were out there working away last month, putting the lie to that commitment. Illegal road construction following broken promises following a failure to respect a county ordinance.

Which brings us back to the trashed signs. Again, I'm not excusing the vandalism. But when you push a neighborhood around by breaking laws and your own word, stuff like that is more likely to happen.

It's human nature. Treat people like trash and you run a greater risk of getting trashed in return.

So if you've an Oregon voter, vote "Yes" on Measure 49 when you get your ballot in a few weeks (we vote entirely by mail in this sometimes-enlightened state).

Measure 49 will go a long way towards stopping the neighbor against neighbor craziness that Measure 37 has spawned. It will restore much-needed order and fairness to Oregon's land use system.

And I'm confident that will lead to fewer sign trashings in the future. When people feel like they're being treated fairly, they return the favor.

October 03, 2007

Great news for Oregon. We don't have to feel guilty about exporting our horribly flawed Measure 37 to Alaska. Yesterday voters in the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su) Borough near Anchorage voted down Proposition 1, a Measure 37 clone, by a 2-1 margin.

What do you think of that, Dave Hunnicutt and Oregonians in Action? You're always talking about how Measure 37 is a model for other states.

Well, in Alaska it was a model for what not to do. Not even one of 34 precincts voted for Prop 1.

Hunnicutt and I were each quoted in an Anchorage Daily News story about Prop 1, "Land use debate looks to Oregon," that ran last week. Looks like my sentiments were much more in attune with Mat-Su voters.

Brian Hines, an author and retiree who runs the blog hinessight.blogs.com , said Measure 37 has had other ill effects.

He and his neighbors have spent "tens of thousands of dollars" fighting a nearby development of 42 lots on 125 acres, which sprang from Measure 37. It's pitted neighbors against one another.

"The main message is just that Oregonians are waking up and seeking that Measure 37 is not helping the mom and pop landowners people thought it would," Hines said. "What's unfortunate is that with Measure 37, there's so much rancor. It's deeply divisive."

Rindi White, the reporter who interviewed me, mentioned that Alaska has deep libertarian roots. I told her, "So does Oregon." Alaskans and Oregonians value their freedom.

Which includes the right to be free of subdivisions being exempted from land use laws that everyone else has to follow, and the right to not have our neighborhood wells go dry from unregulated excessive Measure 37 development.

Yesterday I was listening to conservative talk radio and heard a caller say, "Freedom is the right to not have things done to you."

Absolutely. That's why Proposition 1 was voted down in Alaska. And why Measure 49, Oregon's Measure 37 fix, is going to pass in November's special election.

October 01, 2007

It's a fine wine. That's how my crude palate would describe it. A more refined description is "scads of flavor, character, and really good mid-palate layering."

I also like Measure 49. It's a fine ballot measure that Oregonians soon will be voting on. Today a Portland Oregonian editorial offered up a refined oenophile argument for voting "Yes" and fixing Measure 37 – which could destroy our state's wine industry.

Measure 37 was supposed to bolster the property rights of people who bought their land before the land-use rules took effect. But it completely ignored -- and bulldozed -- the property rights of everybody else, treating them as if they didn't exist. Some are newcomers, some are old-timers, some may even be from France. But they are property owners, too, and should be treated fairly.

In hindsight, Measure 37 looks like an attempt to capture fairness in a bottle, as if only one vintage of ownership matters -- not neighbors, not farmers, not future generations. Yet as every winemaker knows, you can't just stop with one vintage and call your winery a success. You have to keep growing grapes year after year.

If voters approve Measure 49, Oregon winemakers won't even have to taste this year's pinot to know for certain. They'll know instantly: For their industry and for our state, 2007 will be a very good year.

My wife and I are leading our neighborhood's fight against a Measure 37 subdivision on groundwater limited high-value farmland. Recently road construction was started illegally on the property.

Any grape grower or Pinot Noir lover who drove by before Marion County shut down the un-permitted work would have thought, "What a crazy thing to do."

Crazy, because these rolling hills are perfect for a vineyard. Almost 99% of the 217 acres is composed of high value soil (Class I-IV). And nearly all of that soil is Nekia Silty clay loam.

Which a few minutes of Googling revealed is what another vineyard in the Salem area is growing Pinot Noir on. The Carter Vineyard web site says:

The soil is a shallow silty clay loam known as Nekia. It's a well drained soil frequently found in foothills and rolling uplands. Under the top 30 inches of soil is fractured decaying basalt, a relic of Oregon's violent volcanic past. The shallowness of the soil forces the grapes to struggle a little for survival by digging their roots down in the crumbling basalt. As the basalt deteriorates, it releases minerals that are taken up by the plants and reflected in the flavors of the grapes.

Leroy Laack, the Measure 37 claimant, likes to talk about how unfarmable this EFU (exclusive farm use) property is. Yet at one of the many hearings on his subdivision plans, a local farmer testified that he had put some Willamette Valley acreage up for sale and got a phone call from a Californian.

The man said, "I'm not interested in the flatland you're selling. But do you know of any available farmland in the south Salem hills?" He wanted to grow grapes here, like so many other people.

The farmer said that he guessed the Measure 37 property was worth $10-15,000 an acre to a grape grower. Two hundred eleven acres could be sold for $3,000,000 or so. Under Measure 49 three lots of two acres each also could be sold for home sites – with development rights unavailable under Measure 37.

All at little cost to the four owners of the 217 acres. No expensive road building. No marketing of forty-two lots in the face of furious neighborhood opposition and signs surrounding the subdivision that would say: "Don't buy here! Very limited water! Call XXX-XXX-XXXX to learn more."

So vote for Measure 49.

It's good for Oregon. It's good for neighbors like us who risk having our wells and springs go dry because of the subdivision. It's good for Measure 37 claimants who won't have to worry about the uncertainty spawned by the ambiguity of that poorly written law.